Bel is thinking

The Daily Mail appears surprised that a couple who have been running what it calls ‘an x-rated fetish website’ have not been banned from attending their local church.

But why should they be? I would have thought that these were precisely the sort of people one should be welcoming into a church. The church was never set up to be a meeting place for saints, but rather as a place where everyone is welcome. Everyone. Especially those whom the Daily Mail would regard as sinners.

Reminds me of a story in the Bible. Jesus, not really one to turn down a good feast, went to the house of a tax collector, where he ate and drank with people of dubious moral fibre. The ‘righteous’ men of the day were shocked, and muttered amongst themselves. When Jesus realised their displeasure, this is what he said:

They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

So yes, the x-rated fetish-loving couple are welcome in their local church, and with open arms, too. That’s the way it should be. Reminds me of an old saying among Protestant circles, and one the Daily Mail writers would do well to keep in mind:

‘There is no such thing as a perfect church. However, if you ever find one, don’t join it, as you would ruin it.’

I’ve just been watching the Sky News reports on Gordon Brown’s visit to the United States. In front of the cameras, and amid all the pomp and ceremony, Gordon Brown comes across as awkward and unsure. Strangely enough, I find that somewhat endearing. It all seems very touchingly human.

His policies still stink, though.

While David Cameron is away in Rwanda being photographed with a shovel and a hard hat, he might like to know that his newly-acquired outdoor skills may be of some use in his own country. As of tonight’s news, there are still lots of people trapped in their houses in Gloucestershire.

Yes, I know. I don’t actually expect David Cameron to ride in to the rescue and lift them bodily out of their watery plight. We have firemen and women for that job.

But just as we do not expect our politicians to engage in manual labour for which they are not trained, why should we think it normal when they fly to another country to do just that? Are there any particular building skills David Cameron and his merry band can impart to the good banyarwanda?

This trip perplexes me on so many levels. Having lived in that area during the 1994 genocide, I have more than a passing interest in Rwandese affairs. I have been reading Iain Dale’s Rwanda diaries, and moving as the stories are, I do not see quite why it is essential for David Cameron and his team to be visiting the place now. Is there anything they are doing there that would remain undone were Cameron not there? Do they need to engage in three days’ manual labour before they grasp the problems of Africa?

David Cameron says that the trip is important in bridging the so-called ‘obscene’ gap between rich and poor nations. That a gap exists is not in doubt. What is in great doubt, however, is what David Cameron plans to do about it. The Conservative Party website talks about the charmingly named ‘Project Umubano’. In a nutshell, the project will cover activities such as rebuilding schools and local activities for the little children.

All very worthy, but if David Cameron really wants to do something about the ‘obscene gap’ between rich and poor nations, here is a suggestion from me: push for greater financial accountability from African leaders. And while you’re at it, why not raise the issue of democracy in Rwanda? The last elections in Rwanda can hardly be described as having been free and fair. Will David Cameron be saying anything about that? These are the things that will empower the people. A few huts here and there will help, but as a leading politician from a donor country, David Cameron should be using his influence in a more effective way.

Don’t get me wrong, Africa needs help. But it needs the right help. And it needs the right people to give the right help. Digging latrines and building huts? There are charities and non-governmental organisations available to do that. Speaking a few home truths to a quasi-dictatorial Government? Now that is something he should be doing.

He was instrumental in the smoking ban, he would love to take the organs of deceased folk without permission, and he thinks he has the right to tell you how to live your life.

Yes, I am talking about Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer.

I would love to see a copy of his job description. Perhaps there is something in there that gives this man the confidence to make statements like this:

The first thing you see when you walk into a supermarket is a wall of cigarette packets, we need to do something about that, and let’s get the cigarette out of Kate Moss’s mouth.

Sorry Sir, but are you proposing to tell shops how and where they may display their cigarettes? Are there not laws already that inform shopkeepers of the sort of people to whom they may not sell cigarettes? Is that not enough? So long as the shopkeepers are selling to people who may legally buy, of what concern is it to you that the goods are displayed in a prominent place?

Or do you believe that the mere sight of cigarette packets lining a wall is enough to tempt us all into a lifetime of nicotine dependency? Would you rather the cigarettes were hidden under the counter and passed over to the customer in a brown bag?

And as for Kate Moss, please leave the girl alone. She can smoke wherever she pleases, within the limits of the (recently changed) law. So long as she is not smoking in a prohibited place, her cigarette may dangle from her lips with impunity.

And why pick on her at all? Surely you don’t buy into all that ‘role model’ nonsense as well? Do you think that she is a ‘role model’ and must therefore behave in a manner approved by yourself and other such well-meaning figures in authority? Do you not think that there is a problem with society if our children forsake all the worthy examples before them, and choose instead to look up to an inarticulate, scandal-ridden girl as deserving of their adulation? Rather than chasing such a girl down the street and ‘getting the cigarette out of her mouth’, would it not be better to educate people about the health benefits of not smoking, and then leave it to them to make up their minds?

Personal responsibility is one of the most empowering drugs out there. Why do you not advocate it more? Is it because a society of free and responsible adults is one in which there would be precious little for you to do, fewer opportunities to meddle in our lives, and no audience to whom you can preach?

The Conservative Party’s disastrous performance in yesterday’s by elections has been discussed all over the place, so I won’t say much about it.

Just a few things.

The Conservative Party was never going to win in either Ealing Southall or Sedgefield, but surely a respectable second place should have been possible to achieve.

So why didn’t that happen?

I have just read the laughable excuses put forward by the Party. It would have been much better for them to have come out and said ‘we are very sorry we didn’t do well. We remain committed to serving you and will work hard to convince you of this, so that you give us a chance next time around’.

That would have been a refreshingly honest and effective way to draw the line under this and start again.

But no, instead we have all sorts of waffle from the party. According to Grant Shapps, the election co-ordinator, all is not lost because, during the course of the by election, five local councillors defected to the Conservative party. No disrespect to the five councillors involved, but big deal.

Ever since he became leader, David Cameron has spent his time ditching long-standing Conservative principles. Many decent and principled Conservatives have watched with unease, but held their peace. The reasoning from Cameron’s supporters was that all this was necessary to regain the trust of the public. As a result, many with misgivings kept their opinions to themselves and let Cameron get on with the task. For one thing, as long as the Conservatives were ahead in the opinion polls, it looked as though David Cameron and his supporters knew what they were doing.

However, it soon became clear that they did not. The ridiculous attack on grammar schools was one step too far for many, including myself. What was the point of being ahead in the opinion polls if the Party represented nothing approaching conservative principles, and actually did not even seem to know where it was going? I resigned from the Party at that point, with no intention of returning until sanity was restored. I would much rather the Conservative Party stayed in opposition and remained true to its beliefs, than attained office at the cost of apostasy.

This may be a controversial point, but I do not think that the reason Labour is currently ahead in the opinion polls is solely down to the so-called ‘Brown bounce’. And if I am right, that should scare the hell out of David Cameron and his cohorts. Yes, they should worry. Perhaps it is not just the ‘Brown bounce’; perhaps people are looking deeper and saying to themselves that ‘the Conservative party under David Cameron does not seem to stand for anything at all’. Just a thought.

While the Conservative Party was ahead in the opinion polls, it was (relatively) easy for loyal grassroots supporters to turn a blind eye to David Cameron’s apparent lack of party principle. However, now that the Party has not only fallen behind in the polls, but was beaten into third place in yesterday’s by elections by the feeble LibDems, perhaps it is time for the members to ask themselves whether it is worth sticking with David Cameron.

Another week, another story of BBC dishonesty.

This time, it turns out they have (again) been deceiving viewers of phone-in shows.

So that’s what we pay the compulsory TV licence for, is it?

Daily the BBC continue to dig their own grave. No one else makes the case for the abolition of the licence fee in such a compelling manner.

A worrying story in the Telegraph today.

A suspected rapist is out on the run. Police are trying to track him down. They decide that a televised appeal would most likely yield useful results.

However, before they can go ahead with the appeal, the local Racial Equality Council (REC) advise them that because the suspect is Afghan, the appeal could lead to a racist backlash.

So in the world of the REC, the whole of the UK will take to the streets with machetes and hack down every foreign-looking man, if this appeal is shown?

So the police reluctantly back down, the suspect is still on the run, and the Racial Equality Council are satisfied with themselves for a job well done.

What strange times we live in. Never mind the risk to public safety. That obviously is as nothing, when compared to the danger of perceived racism.

Says the Daily Mail.

Apparently, she would wish instead to be known as something called a ‘princess consort’.

I sincerely hope she’s joking. And even if she’s not, I don’t really think there is much she can do about it. We are not that enthusiastic about morganatic marriages in this country, surely she should know that. When Charles becomes King, she should become Queen. That should be the end of that.

Perhaps she is worried about public opinion. However, I don’t think that is sufficient grounds for her to forsake her rightful title. In any case, the Telegraph reports that the public is slowly coming round to the idea of a ‘Queen Camilla’. But even if that were not so, that should not, on its own, bar her from taking what is legally hers.

A rather puzzling post over at Iain Dale’s blog. Reacting to the news that Boris Johnson has decided to stand as London Mayor, Iain says:

Steve Norris should stand against Boris but the others should depart the scene

His reason?

Over the last few months I have interviewed most of the other potential candidates on 18 Doughty Street. I’ve been impressed by their commitment and enthusiasm, but none of them stand a chance against Boris, with one exception. The exception is Steve Norris.

The reason I hope Steve still decides to stand is that Boris needs to be tested and Steve is just the man to provide the test. In addition, Steve could actually beat Boris to the nomination or be there to pick up the pieces if for whatever reasons Boris’s candidacy self combusts.

Hmm.

Sometimes I wonder if Iain writes these things just to provoke fierce debate, and not necessarily because he believes them. I agree regarding the desirability of having a strong candidate to test Boris Johnson, but quite why that has to be Norris, I have no idea.

And as for Norris picking up the nomination again, I hope this does not happen. This is a man who saw nothing wrong in holding on to his Jarvis job while expecting to be taken seriously as a friend of the London commuter. One could argue that there was no conflict of interest, but the fact is that, in politics, perception counts for a lot. If Steve Norris truly could not see how bad that looked to the London voter, then he has no business in politics. I voted for him then, but with a lot of misgivings.

More to the point, Steve Norris has already been beaten twice by Ken Livingstone. Surely the logical response to this is not to send him back into the ring to receive a third beating. Certainly not when there are way better options out there. The Conservative Party is most definitely not short of quality candidates.

Steve Norris does not have a God-given right to stand as the Tory candidate. In fact, I would choose any of the other Tory candidates over him. To my mind, wheeling out a twice-defeated candidate shows a  careless disregard for the electorate. They have refused him twice already, so what do we do? Offer them the same man that they have twice rejected. For a party that claims to be listening to the public, this would be extremely ill-advised. It is tantamount to saying to the electorate: ‘we know what’s good for you, and we will keep offering it until you accept it’. How foolishly futile. Only an ignorant and stiff-necked political party would act this way. I don’t expect much from the Conservative Party these days, but even I would hope they wouldn’t be that stupid.

Lord Black has been found guilty of three of the fraud charges levelled against him. While he was cleared of nine other charges, he was also found guilty of one charge of obstruction of justice.

No doubt many will rejoice. Especially journalists. Expect huge doses of Schadenfreude everywhere. I am keeping an eye out for Jeff Randall’s article on Black’s conviction. Going by his past writings on Lord Black, I expect him to be exceedingly vicious.